Just For Fun

The Supreme Court just issued a ruling on Donald Trump's Muslim ban, and it is something of a political Rorschach test, because how you see it really depends on how you see politics in general. Trump, for instance, is claiming he won a total and sweeping victory. But so can the actual plaintiffs in the case -- the people who sued the Trump administration over the ban. The reason both sides can claim victory is that the ruling was issued on specific legal grounds, not political grounds. And legally, there was something for everyone, in a sort of a grand mishmash of an outcome.

To understand the politics, first you must understand the legal decisions that were just made. There were at least two major lawsuits that resulted in lower courts issuing a stay on Trump's travel ban (there were others as well, but we're kind of lumping them all together for simplicity's sake). One was brought by state attorneys general (from Washington state, most notably). One was brought by individuals (in Hawai'i). Both had to clear the bar of being granted "standing to sue" -- proving that they would suffer real (and not just hypothetical) harm from the new law. The individuals were able to prove harm to their families, by not being able to have extended family members (grandparents, for instance) travel to the United States to see their relatives. The states showed that their state universities would be adversely harmed if they couldn't extend job offers to foreign professors or invitations to experts to lecture on campus. Both of these relied on legal precedents which the Supreme Court has previously created for standing in such cases.

Before we get to yesterday's ruling, a quick review of where the cases now stand is essential. None of these cases has ever had a ruling on the merits of the case. All the legal moves so far have been issuing temporary and preliminary stays (in advance of a ruling) and appeals to those stays. The plaintiffs brought a case to federal court, and asked the court to stay the implementation of the new policy until the case was resolved. The trial courts issued these broad stays. The individual case in Hawai'i resulted in a stay that was broader than the others, which precluded the Trump administration from even moving forward on their goal of "extreme vetting." The appellate courts all upheld these stays, although the Ninth Circuit told the original court to modify the Hawai'i ruling to allow the administration the ability to move forward on their new vetting plans. This started the clock ticking on the built-in temporary nature of the ban.

The Trump administration's initial ban was somewhat of a joke -- hastily-drafted and full of obviously unconstitutional language (like favoring Christian refugees over others). So they rewrote it in an effort to get it through the courts. By doing so, they were forced to pare back Trump's original goals. But in both of these executive orders -- and indeed in Trump's campaign rhetoric, as well -- the travel ban was always supposed to be temporary, taking either 90 or 120 days as a "pause" before the extreme vetting would be ready to take its place. It's already been 120 days since the original travel ban was issued, and even though it has been halted for that period, it's worth pointing out that America has had no terrorist attack from a citizen of any of the banned countries during that time (giving the lie to all of Trump's overheated rhetoric about how crucial it was to immediately implement the ban).

The Supreme Court just ruled on the stays, and pared back the scope of the original courts' ruling. They did so in a very narrow and targeted manner. What the court essentially said is that all of the plaintiffs did indeed have a good case, and that the portions of the stays which covered them should continue. This means that anyone from the banned country list who meets any of several conditions can now still apply for a travel visa: relatives of people legally living in the United States, people who want to travel to universities to either study or lecture, and people who have solid job offers waiting for them. All of these people will still be able to apply for visas all summer long. The plaintiffs won, in other words, but only people in very similar situations to these plaintiffs will be covered by the pared-back stay. Everyone else -- including both casual travelers and refugees -- will be banned from getting visas for either 90 or 120 days. There will be no airport chaos, though, since anyone who already has a valid visa will still be allowed to travel -- the ban will only be imposed on issuing new visas, and thus won't affect anyone already on an airplane or with a valid visa preparing to travel.

Now, none of this means any of the cases have actually been ruled on, even by the original federal judges. None of the judges have ruled on the merits of any of these cases yet, in other words. All that has happened so far has been a fight over an injunction issued before the cases were even heard or tried.

The Supreme Court, by issuing a narrow ruling that gave the plaintiffs exactly what they asked for (but didn't extend that to anyone else, really), is quite obviously hoping that by the time these cases do work their way through the system in full, they will be meaningless. With their half-a-loaf ruling (for both sides), they have set up a situation where they'll easily be able to call the entire matter moot by the time it returns to them. They issued the ruling on the last day of their term, and won't have to hear the cases again until after the temporary period (of 90 or 120 days) is over.

I've pointed out the inane nature of an extended court case over such a short temporary period manytimes previously. The travel ban itself was always nothing short of a political gimmick. The real policy change will come whenever the extreme vetting rules are unveiled (some of which has already quietly been happening). The only real way the travel ban will ever even come before the Supreme Court in the future is if the Trump administration tries to make it a permanent ban. Since the temporary period will be up by the time the court hears any case, it won't matter what is decided. If the extreme vetting is ever challenged in court, that will be an entirely separate case from this one.

Politically, as previously mentioned, both sides can claim victory. The plaintiffs sued for a particular group of people, and the courts have upheld striking down the ban for all of the people in all of these groups. That is a political victory. Trump gets a very watered-down version of a travel ban -- which falls far short of what he originally intended -- but because he gets some sort of limited ban he feels vindicated and can claim a political victory as well. The Supreme Court will likely never have to deal with the issue again, because by the time it returns the temporary period will be up, and the argument will be meaningless going forward. That's a political victory for them of a sort, and is quite likely why the decision was unanimous.

In other words, there's something for everyone in the Supreme Court's decision. The court has not ruled on the merits of the case either way -- whether Trump actually is acting constitutionally or not -- and in the meantime has provided relief to all affected by the groups that were given standing to sue. By ruling very narrowly and specifically on the legal questions, the court has largely avoided the larger political questions.

With Trump patting himself on the back for what he considers vindication, there is now nothing to stop the administration from developing and instituting their extreme vetting plans. That was always the larger fight, both politically and legally, and this fight has yet to be fought. The Supreme Court just showed that immigration policies may indeed be successfully challenged in federal court, by ruling that the feds overstepped in a naturalization case that involved a lie told during the application process. So if any of the extreme vetting provisions goes too far, the possibility of successfully challenging them in federal court will still remain.

The travel ban fight was always over a policy that was only supposed to last for three or four months. It has now been longer than four months since this fight began. The courts have now restarted this clock's ticking, and by the time the high court even has an opportunity to hear any of these cases again, this period will be over. This conveniently allows them to declare the whole issue moot and move on, later in the year. Which makes it quite likely that any real challenge to Trump's stated desire to ban all Muslims from entry to the United States hasn't even begun yet, and won't until the extreme vetting is fully implemented. As I said at the start, yesterday's ruling is a mishmash designed to largely avoid the real issue until a clearer court case is filed against the permanent changes the Trump administration is promising to make.

Correction to previous article:I've been meaning to address this for a while, and today seemed like a good place to do it. In writing on legal cases a few weeks ago ("Three Court Cases Worth Noting"), I made a gross error through not taking enough time to research the case. In the segment titled "Political Gerrymandering," I inaccurately stated that the case from Wisconsin over purely political gerrymandering had already been heard by the Supreme Court and we were waiting on a ruling. This was wrong. The case was merely under consideration by the Supreme Court, as to whether they would even hear it or not. They did decide to hear this case, so it'll be a big one next year. But they have not even begun to do so yet, which is not what I claimed in the article at all. My apologies for this gross editorial error. Mea culpa maxima.

There's a huge takeaway here also. The Court said 6-3 that the freeze on Trump's 2.0 watered down travel ban should NOT be lifted in its entirety... meaning the majority by 2-1 believe there is at least a decent case that the EO is illegal when applied to foreign nationals with ties to persons and/or organizations in the United States... possibly a violation of the First Amendment's ban on religious discrimination (the 4th Circuit's ruling) or possibly due to limitations to a president's power to control immigration under the Immigration and Naturalization Act (the 9th Circuit's ruling), or for whatever other reason.

If there was no legal basis for a complete lifting of travel ban 2.0, why wouldn't the full Court do so? :)

Yet another person associated with the Trump campaign registers retroactively as a foreign agent. Wonder if Paul Manafort paid income taxes on that $17.1 million of income from Ukraine that he just disclosed and submitted to the Department of Justice? If he didn't, he has broken multiple laws along with the obvious violations of FARA... Foreign Agents Registration Act.

Such a pity these "coincidences" keep happening to those associated with Trump.

By Manafort finally filing these now, he's most likely flipped and is cooperating with the FBI. And with this breaking news, it would not be at all unexpected if Trump were to freak out and go on a Twitter tirade. :)

The court has not ruled on the merits of the case either way -- whether Trump actually is acting constitutionally or not --

This is not factually accurate..

By cancelling the stay in general, the SCOTUS *DID* state that the ban is constitutional..

Which makes it quite likely that any real challenge to Trump's stated desire to ban all Muslims from entry to the United States hasn't even begun yet,

This is also not factually accurate any more than it is factually accurate to say that Obama's stated position is that marriage is between a man and a woman only or it is the Democrat Party's stated position that the KKK is a wonderful organization..

The unanimous decision, which allows most of the travel ban to be enforced (for now) with a critical caveat, is not only a political victory for Trump, but a defeat for left-wing courts that seemed more preoccupied with an animus towards the president than interpreting the law.

It was a unanimous decision and a clear win for President Trump...

From the beginning of the legal battle, it was obvious that the president has authority over national security and immigration. Both Congress and the Constitution are explicit on that front. Supreme Court precedent has determined that judges should not look behind the president's motives if the law is facially valid.

Look at the text of the law and not at campaign rhetoric..

Whatta concept!!! :D

The lower courts, however, tossed decades of legal jurisprudence out the window and replaced it with a creative new standard: they analyzed Trump's past campaign statements and his tweets, found them to indicate an animus towards Muslims, and then concluded that the order was thus unconstitutional, all the while ignoring its actual legal merits.

yup, yup, yup.....

In other words, the order was illegal because it was signed by President Trump.

It was absurd, and even liberal lawyers who opposed the order as a matter of policy admitted this new legal standard would not pass muster. They were right: the Supreme Court, in their per curium opinion, kicked it to the curb.

Who could have POSSIBLY thunked it??

Oh wait.. :D

There was no mention of tweets; no discussion of 'Muslim bans;' not even any reference to Trump himself. Instead, the Supreme Court kept their legal analysis exactly where it should be: whether the executive order is facially legitimate and balancing the executive's authority on national security against the burden on the plaintiffs.

They concluded that, for the most part, the lower courts had gone too far with their temporary injunctions. As one legal observer put it:

The Supreme Court did what the lower court judges would not – treat President Trump like any other President with the “presumption of regularity.”

That's just what I said!! :D

...the lower courts should take the hint....

But they won't...

Because they are Democrats first and foremost and Party loyalty is their ONLY agenda...

By Manafort finally filing these now, he's most likely flipped and is cooperating with the FBI.

Let's face it, the real action is taking place away from the front pages.

Mueller and his team seem to be water tight - not many leaks coming from the real investigators - the leaks come when they need to collect information and the people they ask for it run around screaming to any reporter they can find.

If anybody has cut a deal, I'm sure it contains a provision that leaking to the press or anybody else invalidates the protection, so they will keep quiet.

I also think Mueller is smart enough to realize that as soon as he starts charging people 45 is going to fire him. If I were Mueller I'd keep a tight lid until he absolutely has to charge somebody to advance the investigation. If he can pick off the Manaforts and the Flynns without letting 45 know it is happening he can create a document that is devastating even without his personal presence.

I also think Mueller is smart enough to realize that as soon as he starts charging people 45 is going to fire him. If I were Mueller I'd keep a tight lid until he absolutely has to charge somebody to advance the investigation. If he can pick off the Manaforts and the Flynns without letting 45 know it is happening he can create a document that is devastating even without his personal presence.

I can't WAIT until Mueller pulls a Comey and watch ya'all turn on Mueller the way ya'all turned on Comey.. :D

Ya'all hype any anti-Trump event to epic proportions and then ya'all come crashing down when the FACTS and REALITY sets in...

I would think that such disappointment after disappointment after disappointment after disappointment after disappointment after disappointment after just CAN'T be healthy for the Left Wingers' mental health...

Why would the SCOTUS cancel the stay for all but a narrow sliver of the population??

Because those were the people identified in the lawsuit as suffering injury. These were examples that were taken as representative of the larger population. The court chose to only apply the stay to the people specifically identified.

If another lawsuit detailed a different group that also suffer injury then they will also be granted a stay.

There is no real point to this however because this lawsuit would take time to work thru the lower courts before it could be added to the SCOTUS case, by which time SCOTUS will probably already have ruled.

It is a bit like somebody who walks into a room and punches 20 people in the face. A lawsuit is brought to put a restraining order on the criminal, naming 4 specific people but applying to all 20. The court initially said the restraining order applied to all 20, but a picky judge said that only 4 have been named so it only applies to those and not the other 16. If SCOTUS agree to the restraining order it will apply to everybody.

If the SCOTUS had thought that President Trump's travel ban was unconstitutional or not within the purview of the POTUS, they would not have cancelled the stay in general..

Your flexibility and twisting of the truth to fit your narrative is again duly noted. I won't rub your nose into the fact that you claimed the original EO/Muslim Ban was totally constitutional as written... as you regurgitated back the same nonsense and right-wing talking points being pushed to the minions by Fox News Entertainment propaganda television and other right-wing propaganda outlets. If that Muslim Ban/Travel Ban 1.0 had been constitutional like they insisted and you spewed back in agreement, there would have naturally been no need whatsoever to put out the "watered down" EO/Travel Ban 2.0.

The fact that the SCOTUS *DID* cancel the stay in general and did so unanimously, proves that the travel ban IS constitutional..

The FACT that several lower courts issued a stay on EO/Muslim Ban/Travel Ban 1.0 and the FACT that the Trump Administration then abandoned Muslim Ban/Travel Ban 1.0 and issued another "watered down" EO/Travel Ban 2.0 which again was stayed by several lower courts until oral arguments could be heard later and the FACT that the SCOTUS by a 2-1 margin *DIDN'T* completely lift the stay in the 6-3 per curiam decision makes this a partial victory for both sides of the issue and not remotely indicative of what you're claiming. There has been no ruling on the constitutionality issue one way or the other for either EO/Travel Ban 1.0 or 2.0, and the fact that the stay was allowed to remain in place isn't remotely indicative of a unanimous decision in Trump's favor. The justices allowed the Trump administration to partially enforce Travel Ban 2.0 against pretty much anyone who is not tangibly affected by it. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch who dissented from the per curiam (by the Court) unsigned opinion are the only justices who argue that the travel ban should have been allowed to go fully into effect pending SCOTUS review.

If you want to continue to claim that the SCOTUS has ruled on constitutionality, which it has absolutely and unequivocally NOT DONE, I'm totally okay with the FACT that you don't seem to mind in the least appearing ignorant or deluding yourself or BOTH. :)

No, the FACT is that they were all Democrat judges, so what ELSE are they going to say...

If you want to continue to claim that the SCOTUS has ruled on constitutionality, which it has absolutely and unequivocally NOT DONE, I'm totally okay with the FACT that you don't seem to mind in the least appearing ignorant or deluding yourself or BOTH. :)

And yet, if the travel ban was unconstitutional the SCOTUS wouldn't have cancel'ed the stay and SHIRLEY wouldn't have cancelled it UNANIMOUSLY...

This is also not factually accurate any more than it is factually accurate to say that Obama's stated position is that marriage is between a man and a woman only or it is the Democrat Party's stated position that the KKK is a wonderful organization..

Why stop at 2 straw man arguments? Knock yourself out and go full out with a whole list of totally unrelated BS that proves nothing. *LOL*

My view is that the partial removal of the stay on eo2 is as much of a win as was possible for the administration, because scotus could well have upheld the stay entirely. However kick is correct that the majority studiously avoided ruling on issues of constitutionality, and michale is jumping the gun on that issue.

My view is that the partial removal of the stay on eo2 is as much of a win as was possible for the administration, because scotus could well have upheld the stay entirely.

And the SCOTUS *WOULD* have upheld the stay in it's entirety *IF* the travel ban was unconstitutional or not within the purview of the POTUS..

THAT's the point..

The fact that the SCOTUS UNANIMOUSLY struck down the stay for all but a narrow ADMINISTRATION DEFINED slice of the American people PROVES that the constitutionality of the travel ban is not in question...

Because, for the relevant portion of the decision, the portion that ALLOWS President Trump's ban, that decision WAS unanimous..

Like CW said, it's a partial lifting of a stay, something for both sides. "Per curiam" means "by the Court," and three dissenting justices couldn't reinstate the whole ban because the other six wouldn't let them. Clue in.

"In practical terms, this means that §2(c) may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States," the Court wrote.

Hey, even some of the Trump sycophants are aware of Trump's lie and the fact that Trump needs a bigly win so he FALSELY characterized this as a "9-0 unanimous decision," and the minions believed the BS from the Lying Blowhole and followed suit. It's comical to watch them spin it, but despite the BS and propaganda, there has been NO DECISION regarding constitutionality made by the Supreme Court. It's simply the latest FAKE NEWS from the Orange Blowhole. :)

By show of hands here, has anyone else besides David Fahrenthold and myself perchance noticed the pattern of Trump accusing people of doing exactly what he's guilty of doing himself? Whatever the Orange Blowhole claims others are doing is like a living road map to the truth about Trump. *LOL* :)

Cite is short for "citation" and generally applies to decisions in court cases. Manafort's FARA filing with the Department of Justice is provided at the link in my post.

As far as the remainder of my post, oh how I wish that Court's from sea to shining sea agreed with my opinions and included them in decisions at the local all the way up to the penultimate level of the United States judicial system, but alas... this is simply NOT the case. So naturally there will be no citation for my opinions. *LOL*

I will say that it is widely known that Manafort denied receiving these funds which he now acknowledges with his extremely recent FARA filing. So Manafort at one point LIED and got caught in the lying, and I'm guessing the person(s) who brought it to his attention are the FBI or those similarly situated. Some of this isn't rocket science, you know, simply an exercise wherein you simply "follow the money." Alas, the proverbial money can be followed, but that gets into a "sources and methods" discussion which thereby ends the discussion.

Poor Paul is now in beaucoup legal trouble. Wonder however he will be able to avoid jail time? Stay tuned. :)

You mean "FAKE NEWS" like that has been coming out of CNN and ya'all slurp up hook, line and sinker??

You mean like that?? :D

You should call Trump and offer your skills up as a replacement to the tag team of Sean Spicer and Sarah Huckabee Sanders. You couldn't do any worse that those West Wing bozos who are now trying to prove that one story being retracted by a few reporters with one cable news network is the equivalent of every single piece of news by every other news organization that doesn't agree with the Trump Administration is "fake news."

I hate to bring up "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named," but in point of FACT, HWMNBN used the exact same tactics when he referred to the media as "lügenpresse" and an enemy of the people.

Poor Paul is now in beaucoup legal trouble. Wonder however he will be able to avoid jail time? Stay tuned. :)

Cite???

Like CW said, it's a partial lifting of a stay, something for both sides. "Per curiam" means "by the Court," and three dissenting justices couldn't reinstate the whole ban because the other six wouldn't let them. Clue in.

You can spin it however you like..

But the FACT is that the SCOTUS UNANIMOUSLY cancel'ed the stay for all except a very thin slice of the population..

The SCOTUS would NOT have done so if there was even the CHANCE that there would be even a HINT of unconstitutionality about the President's Travel Ban...

You should call Trump and offer your skills up as a replacement to the tag team of Sean Spicer and Sarah Huckabee Sanders. You couldn't do any worse that those West Wing bozos who are now trying to prove that one story being retracted by a few reporters with one cable news network is the equivalent of every single piece of news by every other news organization that doesn't agree with the Trump Administration is "fake news."

Isn't this "off topic"?? :D

Again, spin it how ever you like, but CNN just got body-slammed to the mat..

BIG TIME..

The Russia crap is a huge nothing-burger.. So says Democrats and their lapdogs, the media...

Concerned about ISIS?
Thought about Russia, Iraq, Syria, Iran, and how what's happening there may affect us?
Did you hear the WH and Nikki Haley threaten Syria, Iran and Russia?
How about Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist reporting that US intelligence had NO EVIDENCE to support the claims about the supposed Sarin attack in Syria which Trump used to launch "beautiful" cruise missiles?

Good interview with Max Blumenthal that covers all those things and more-

Your tax dollars going down the drain with no strategic US interests at stake... but rather benefitting the Saudis and Israelis... y'know, making them great again.
And another campaign promise broken... but Dems are fully on board, so this Trump lie is going unchallenged.

But the FACT is that the SCOTUS UNANIMOUSLY cancel'ed the stay for all except a very thin slice of the population..

if you write the word FACT in big letters, make sure you don't use adjectives like "thin." if you could name the percentage or exclude words that substitute judgment for raw numbers, THEN it would be a fact.

The SCOTUS would NOT have done so if there was even the CHANCE that there would be even a HINT of unconstitutionality about the President's Travel Ban...

that is unsupported speculation - there are MANY other reasons that are equally likely, if not moreso.

if you write the word FACT in big letters, make sure you don't use adjectives like "thin." if you could name the percentage or exclude words that substitute judgment for raw numbers, THEN it would be a fact.

The word FACT is applied to the UNANIMOUS decision and not to the description of the very thin slice of Americans that the decision applies to..

As such, it's perfectly apt..

that is unsupported speculation - there are MANY other reasons that are equally likely, if not moreso.

one is that they are aware the decision is politically charged and want to keep their ruling as narrow as possible. another is that they believe constitutional protections apply differently to people who already have a legitimate connection to our country than to those who don't. yet another is that everybody who sued already had a connection to our country, and they're not allowed to sue on behalf of people who are significantly different from them. that's just off the top of my head.

one is that they are aware the decision is politically charged and want to keep their ruling as narrow as possible.

Placing Politics above Unconstitutionality??

I don't see that as a viable conclusion..

another is that everybody who sued already had a connection to our country, and they're not allowed to sue on behalf of people who are significantly different from them.

The reason to grant a stay or not grant a stay is simple..

A stay is granted based on the assumption that the side requesting the stay will prevail when the case is heard...

By removing the stay in all but a narrow piece, the SCOTUS is affirming, UNANIMOUSLY, that the court believes that it's likely that President Trump will prevail when the SCOTUS hears the case... The key part there is UNANIMOUSLY.... If there was any doubt that the POTUS would NOT prevail in October, it's highly unlikely that the decision to cancel the stay would have been unanimous..

"Simple logic"

:D

Your examples are not logical based on the fact of why stays are granted..

The last 30 days have been nothing short of a public relations nightmare for CNN.

The network is reeling after a brutal stretch that has seen two hosts taken off-air, one story retracted and another rewritten, accusations of staged protests, the resignations of three key employees and most recently, an ongoing series of undercover videos meant to portray CNN as misleading the public about the Trump-Russia stories that have dominated media coverage of the president so far.http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/28/cnns-month-long-nightmare/

No matter how ya want to spin it... CNN has taken a HUGE hit in the credibility department... Credibility which wasn't all that high to begin with...

@m
I meant narrow legally, not numerically. As to the numbers, i have not yet seen any evidence to justify your opinion that the numbers with standing to sue are small or narrow. The only logical conclusion one can draw so far is that you can't win a case you're not party to.

I suspect the admin will be sued and lose if they claim grandparent and grandchild do not have a bona fide connection. Beside being mean and heartless, it's also obviously wrong. I agree that the scotus decision is a win for Donald, but it says absolutely nothing about the president's constitutional authority.
JL

If there is an inference to be made about the direction of the final decision based on the temporary one, it's that it will be some sort of compromise. Assuming that the supreme court rules in October, they may have additional litigants to include, such as blood relatives who the admin denied entry.

I'm not so sure that violating the terms of the temporary ruling necessarily serves the admin's purposes. It's hard evidence that the current ban is a bad faith effort to circumvent constitutional restrictions on prior ban proposals.

Everyone can stipulate it was per curiam. That's pretty narrowly defined, and different sides can probably agree on what that does and does not imply.

Everybody can stipulate that three justices did sign a dissent. Perforce, all three justices must have concurred with all the others at least as far as all were willing to go at this point. .

Everybody can stipulate, that Thomas wrote in dissent, "Today’s compromise will burden executive officials ..."

The simplest explanation which reconciles those facts is that the Court was unanimous on Executive power and authority at least as far as (using the phrase popular in the appellate debates) the four corners of the EO.

That means there are elements in this case which require more deliberations by and among the Justices. Balancing the calendar constraint with the immediate public interest required a compromise, as Thomas asserted.

Finally, we might stipulate that "unanimous" is the kind of politically charged adjective which both press and president so dearly love. Until the fall, when all Justices go on record, debating how to characterize this is akin to debating the count of the angels on the head of this pin. Some of the angels' names, by the way, are Ziglar v. Abbasi, and Hernandez v. Mesa.

The simplest explanation which reconciles those facts is that the Court was unanimous on Executive power and authority at least as far as (using the phrase popular in the appellate debates) the four corners of the EO.

Attack the messenger because you have no facts to refute the message.. :D

You are projecting yet again, dearest. It was indeed you who attacked the messenger... CNN... as "fake news." Then... as if on cue... you made multiple posts agreeing with a CNN producer and an on-air commentator because you agreed with them. *LOL*

So let's review: When you repeatedly refer to any network as "fake news" yet then agree repeatedly with that network's humans, you've already refuted it yourself, sunshine. That was the whole point that seems to have eluded you. :)

I accept your concession.. :D

You and President DICKtater should seriously stop worrying about others' concessions when you're quite obviously having trouble in recognizing your own. :)

I was just sitting outside reflecting (euphemism for smoking) how this all goes back to candidate Trump announcing his call for a total ban on Muslims until it could be determined "what the hell is going on." That was red meat and promise of action to the starved. To the fat establishment, it sounded like a guy at the end of the bar shouting to no one.

This morning the President attacked the Morning Joe host in a nasty ad hominem tweet storm.

Why is this banner lead news? Everybody knows Donald Trump was and is, in manner, indistinguishable from a cashed-up capo from Queens. Could it have anything to do with Washington and New York patricians bouncing Mika on their knee when she was a toddler, or their kids being her classmates, or being invited to her birthday parties or events?

Regardless, around a third of the nation will presume if he did it, the bitch must have had it coming. Another third will be shocked, shocked, that the president would do something so unpresidential. And the rest will either not know it happened, or don't care.

Retracting a story has become routine for the likes of CNN and WaPoop...

Reporters are human and stories are retracted when they're incorrect; that shows at least they're attempting to report factually. Whereas Fox News, Drudge, Daily Caller, Alex Jones and the right-wing propaganda bullshit is a mishmash of lies from the outset so never a need for a retraction when it's your intent to disseminate lies and propaganda.

That is unprecedented and reflects the depths of how badly they screwed up..

It's either "routine" or "unprecedented," it can't be both. Or maybe in the right-wing world of cognitive dissonance it's both.

ESPECIALLY since there are recordings of a CNN producer saying that the Russia story is "bullshit"...

Cite?

Do you ever even bother to follow up on the stories that make you feel good? Do they follow up and explain it at the White House or on Fox News? Nah. That's how propaganda works, and those who eat it up and spew it back without question are referred to as "useful idiots."

What is Van Jones saying today about it?

VAN JONES

Serious question: Is anyone out there still gullible enough to fall for an edited, right-wing propaganda video -- in 2017?

Apparently, the Trump White House is. (SAD)

James O'Keefe and his band of crazies are at it again. This time I am one of the targets. Yesterday, O'Keefe released a so-called "bombshell" video of me, standing outside CNN's Los Angeles bureau. I was answering a passerby's question by saying: "The whole Russia thing is a big nothing-burger. There is nothing you can do --" before I was cut off by the arrival of my CNN coworkers. More on what I actually meant in a moment.

I accept your total lack of self-awareness and moving on now. You can continue to try and turn this around and make it about me, but I'm not the one regularly whining about CNN being "fake news" and then posting links that I expect people to believe from... you guessed it... CNN! :)

How do you do it? Do you have photo recall of every movie script in the age of Talkies, or do you have a lookup engine of some kind?

When it comes to Trek and quite a few select movies (A FEW GOOD MEN, MY COUSIN VINNY, GHOSTBUSTERS, etc etc) total recall.. :D

Here's an example..

"YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!! Son, we live in a world that has walls and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's going to do it!? You!!?? You, LT Weinberg!!?? I have more responsibility than you can possibly imagine!! You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines! You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know! That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives!! And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, SAVES LIVES!!! You don't want the truth because, deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you WANT me on that wall!!! You NEED me on that wall!! We use words like honor, code, loyalty! We use these words to describe a life spent DEFENDING something!!! You use them as a punchline!! I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the very blanket of freedom that I provide and then QUESTIONS the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just say 'thank you' and move on your way.. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I DON'T GIVE A DAMN WHAT YOU THINK YOU ARE ENTITLED TO!!!"
-Jack Nicholson, A FEW GOOD MEN

That was done completely from memory.. :D

For the last 20+ years, the game in our house was to use a movie/TV quote and then ask, "What's that from!??" :D

I'll admit that, every once in a *great* while I'll know the gist of the apropos quote, but sneak over to IMDB to get the exact verbiage...

Reporters are human and stories are retracted when they're incorrect; that shows at least they're attempting to report factually. Whereas Fox News, Drudge, Daily Caller, Alex Jones and the right-wing propaganda bullshit is a mishmash of lies from the outset so never a need for a retraction when it's your intent to disseminate lies and propaganda.

You see your bigotry???

If it's a Left Winger it's "Reporters are human and stories are retracted when they're incorrect; that shows at least they're attempting to report factually."

When it's a Right Winger it's "right-wing propaganda bullshit is a mishmash of lies from the outset so never a need for a retraction when it's your intent to disseminate lies and propaganda."

So very typical of you... attacking the messenger because you have no facts to refute the message. :)

Retracting a story has become routine for the likes of CNN and WaPoop...

Let's Review: It is YOU and Poor Donald whining regularly about "fake news." It was YOU that whined like a toddler about "CNN and WaPoop" having to issue retractions becoming routine. So in response to your rant about "CNN and WaPoop," I point out that the right-wing rags where you get your daily spoon-feedings of lies and propaganda don't have to retract anything because they don't even attempt to be truthful... yet they never seem to be the subject of your incessant whining like a Party drone about "fake news"... "fake news"... Nope. There's nary a peep out of you about the regular diet of propaganda from the likes of Drudge and Alex "Playing a Character" Jones where fact-free reporting is dished up daily for the useful idiots.

Finally, President Pathological-Liar-In-Chief is the most reliable source of "fake news" and outright bullshit that exists in the news at the present time, yet I don't hear you complaining much if ever about his "fake news" and blatant lying. Why are your hysterical rants and your whiny tantrums about lying never directed toward the falsehoods and machinations of the power-worshiping, money-chasing, turncoat and demagogue DICKtater Don?

As per usual and right on cue, my point seems to have gone right over your head, and you're projecting yet again, dearest. :)

And yet, it was YOU Left Wingers who COINED the term to excuse the DEVASTATING LOSS that the Dumbocrats suffered at the hands of President Trump!!

The FACT that you're admittedly NOT a "history buff" is really no excuse for NOT knowing current events. The term "fake news" had been repeatedly flying out of the Orange Blowhole long before the election was ever held. You'd have to really NOT be paying attention to miss that. Also, I'm STILL NOT a "Left Winger," and no amount of your lying about it is going to somehow magically make it true. It's simply ample and repeated proof that you're either dense or you repeatedly choose to lie about other posters; it's one or the other.

In point of FACT, it was He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named who utilized the technique of referring to journalists as the "lügenpresse"... the "lying press" in the EXACT same manner that Benedict Donald is channeling now. He's trying so hard to convince the people that the press are liars; he must really have something he's preemptively trying to cover up. Like HWMNBN, DICKtater Don is also the only POTUS who has ever claimed that the press is an "enemy of the people." It's like President Dementia hasn't read the Constitution and has no idea that he's supposed to be serving the people, NOT trying to undermine the First Amendment to the Constitution of the people, by the people, for the people. He did swear to uphold the Constitution... swore on the Bible. You have to ask yourself: Why is he trying so hard to undermine the Constitution he SWORE to uphold?

I get it. You have to re-write recent history because ya are getting yer ass handed to you on a daily basis!! :D

Said the repeated liar who got so used to having his ass handed to him that he gave names to his ass cheeks. :)

By the way, you have a "tell," sunshine. Whenever someone gets the better of you, your knee-jerk reaction is to fall back on the 2016 election.